Process of Change
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Kitty - 27 May 2006 00:51 GMT Text on a process of change that I want to share with the group. It's very much like the process of changing things about myself that I go through relatively often.
You can find a the full text at the link below. It has a lot more then I copied and pasted below, including a few specific technique http://www.habitsmart.com/motivate.htm
PRECONTEMPLATION STAGE. This is not so much a stage of change as a prelude to the formal stages. Precontemplation is when people with habit problems do not recognize, or are unconcerned, with the problem. A smoker may be so busy with his vocation that the constant hacking cough doesn't distract him enough to consider it a significant problem.
CONTEMPLATIVE STAGE Miller and Rollnick (1991) state that what frequently jars people into the next stage, that of contemplating the possibility of change, is convincing, personal and timely information--not coercion or even advice. People not yet contemplating change are not particularly open to advice, much less confrontation.
DETERMINATION STAGE This is a transition period between shifting the balance in favor of change and getting things moving in the that direction. Many people have fleeting moments of determination that swiftly vanish when all of the horrors involved come back into awareness. Determination will lead directly into action if you have thoroughly considered all aspects of your addictive problem realistically, if you have begun to modify expectancies and have established a goal what is conducive to your individual needs and values.
ACTION STAGE It is truly remarkable what people are capable of doing once sufficiently motivated and invested in a realistic goal. I have witnessed many people in awe over their inherent ability to change once they have removed barriers and have allowed themselves to tap into existing strengths.
MAINTENANCE STAGE To maintain changes, one must have practiced living a less harmful lifestyle until doing so becomes automatic. As I said, some people may need to go through the stages several times before lasting change occurs. Not only is this is okay, it's customary.
RELAPSE
One of the most significant problems with the 12-step treatment model is the all-or-none manner in which relapses are construed. Regardless of the intensity, slips and relapses have always been viewed as failure, falling off the wagon, time to "start over."
I prefer to look at relapse in terms of degree. It is just so much more humane. To change addictive behavior is to learn how to behave differently in certain situations--in essence, no different than learning any other complex skill. How inappropriate it would be to have a no tolerance attitude during the toilet training of a two-year old. Imagine a "relapse", for example a wet bed after several weeks of dryness, being conceptualized as a failure. Slips and setbacks are a part of learning. In fact an integral part. It is through our mistakes that we learn where we need to put most of our efforts in the future.
If you're stillinterested in the text, here's that link again: http://www.habitsmart.com/motivate.htm
shinypenny - 27 May 2006 01:09 GMT > CONTEMPLATIVE STAGE > Miller and Rollnick (1991) state that what frequently jars people into > the next stage, that of contemplating the possibility of change, is > convincing, personal and timely information--not coercion or even > advice. People not yet contemplating change are not particularly open > to advice, much less confrontation. So what stage do you think Ted is in?
jen
Kitty - 27 May 2006 02:15 GMT > > CONTEMPLATIVE STAGE > > Miller and Rollnick (1991) state that what frequently jars people into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So what stage do you think Ted is in? Moly in contempltive stage, with one of is heels i pre-contemplation stage, a toe in determination stage, and every now and then taking a look over the fence and peaking into action stage, and scaring himself half to death when he does that, and reverting to pre-contemplation fo a little bit.
I don't think the real processof change is really even s linear as described in the article. I think thre's a fair amount of coming and going between the stages.
For example, Ted being in therapy indicates some ction. Undoubtedly he is doing a lot of contemplation on some items, but IMO, on some other items, he doesn't seem to be even in contemplation.
In order for Ted to have more fulfilling human interactions nd more fulfilling marrige, it looks like there's a number of littler things that need to be changed. IRL as opposed in a textbbook or an article outlining an observed general patern, change is complex process where there my be a number of individual component working together. Those components can be in different stages.
Out of 57things Ted may need to change (just making up a number here for illustration sake, like heinz 57 varieties), I would say a good third or a half of them are in contemplation stage.
[Kitty - count on me to make a short story long]
shinypenny - 27 May 2006 14:24 GMT > > > CONTEMPLATIVE STAGE > > > Miller and Rollnick (1991) state that what frequently jars people into [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > half to death when he does that, and reverting to pre-contemplation fo > a little bit. I agree. Now re-read what it says about that stage: coercion, confrontation, or even advice does not help people in this stage.
jen
Kitty - 28 May 2006 04:04 GMT >> > > CONTEMPLATIVE STAGE >> > > Miller and Rollnick (1991) state that what frequently jars people into [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I agree. Now re-read what it says about that stage: coercion, >confrontation, or even advice does not help people in this stage. I harp on him the most about looking for a different type of therapy, and not pushing for hi wife to change as much as he is. With that aspect he's, he's already in action stage, considering he's going to therapy, that took some action to start and keep going.
Seeker - 30 May 2006 16:04 GMT > On 27 May 2006 06:24:25 -0700, "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> > > I harp on him the most about looking for a different type of therapy, > and not pushing for hi wife to change as much as he is. > With that aspect he's, he's already in action stage, considering he's > going to therapy, that took some action to start and keep going. I think this theme has come up before, probably from more than one person. I can think of four areas where what I have said might be interpreted as my wishing my wife could change in those areas: sex & affection, emotiional responsiveness, criticism, and topics of conversation. Have I missed any? Other than emotional responsiveness, are the kinds of changes I'd like unreasonable desires? Even given that, however, where do you see that I am *pushing* her for change? If anything, I haven't asked her to do a thing, other than initially to come to therapy.
-- Ted
Doug Anderson - 30 May 2006 16:14 GMT > > On 27 May 2006 06:24:25 -0700, "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > am *pushing* her for change? If anything, I haven't asked her to do a > thing, other than initially to come to therapy. Ted, I don't think it is what you _want_ that is unreasonable.
I think there are two things that are unreasonable though.
- being disappointed in your wife for not having a more intimate relationship with you, when you are too frightened to be more open with her.
- and related: hoping that change might come your way without risk.
What you _want_ is not unreasonable. Your wife may or may not be able to be in a relationship which will help provide that. You won't find out until you are able to really talk to her about what you want.
Seeker - 30 May 2006 17:17 GMT > > > On 27 May 2006 06:24:25 -0700, "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > to be in a relationship which will help provide that. You won't find > out until you are able to really talk to her about what you want. I assume you realize we changed the topic, from whether I am "pushing" for some change, which Kitty asserted and I take issue with, to whether my desires are reasonable, which it is nice every now and then to find reassurance about. On the other hand, the desire of a prisoner to be free from prison is understandable -- but is it a reasonable desire if he deserves his imprisonment?
-- Ted
Doug Anderson - 30 May 2006 17:35 GMT > > > > On 27 May 2006 06:24:25 -0700, "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > desires are reasonable, which it is nice every now and then to find > reassurance about. Yes, I realize that. I don't see you pushing your wife to do things.
I see you wanting her to do things, and I see you resenting her for not being like what you would like her to be. But I don't see reason to think you are pushing her.
> On the other hand, the desire of a prisoner to be free from prison is > understandable -- but is it a reasonable desire if he deserves his > imprisonment? Maybe we have a terminology problem around the word "reasonable."
I think it is reaosnable for a prisoner to want to be free. But I don't think that just because a desire is reasonable means that it will (or even should) be gratified.
When we are unhappy, I think our first priority should go to understanding what we want. Often the things we want are reasonable, but sometimes we aren't going to get them anyhow. But once we understand what we want, we can go on to ask ourselves whether we are willing to do what is required to have a chance of gratifying those desires. Sometimes the answer is yes. But sometimes we decide that trying to gratify a particular desire may not be worth risking what needs to be risked. Either decision can be reasonable, and one can potentially make either decision in the face of a "reasonable" desire.
As far as your analogy goes, if the prisoner and the prison warden are the same person, then I'd suggest the prisoner has control over his freedom and should learn how to exercise that control.
Seeker - 30 May 2006 20:55 GMT > Maybe we have a terminology problem around the word "reasonable." Probably only because it's too broad.
> I think it is reaosnable for a prisoner to want to be free. But I > don't think that just because a desire is reasonable means that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > needs to be risked. Either decision can be reasonable, and one can > potentially make either decision in the face of a "reasonable" desire. I'm not sure that the "risk calculation" can be done reasonably (rationally?). But this post of yours and the comments about Kitty's psychological experiments prompted what may be a new train of thought. I have been more or less doing all the risk calculating by myself, deciding whether to make my wife a subject of such an experiment, as it were, without fully involving her. Yes, I told her I was unhappy, but never really told her what I wanted (except very vaguely) and thus didn't give her the opportunity to decide if the risk, as she saw it, was worth it. I'm not saying that very well, probably because what I think I'm seeing is still fuzzy, but unitentionally or not you've planted an idea I need to explore.
> As far as your analogy goes, if the prisoner and the prison warden > are the same person, then I'd suggest the prisoner has control over > his freedom and should learn how to exercise that control. I think you're stretching the analogy...
Ted
Kitty - 28 May 2006 06:37 GMT >> > > CONTEMPLATIVE STAGE >> > > Miller and Rollnick (1991) state that what frequently jars people into [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I agree. Now re-read what it says about that stage: coercion, >confrontation, or even advice does not help people in this stage. I'm really not interested in your trying to change my mind on the Ted approach. If anything, I'm starting to get mildly irritated by your trying.
I also don't appreciate the set up question much, now that I know it wasn't an honest question about what I think, but a setup to try and prove your point.
Did you think I didn't agree with you the first time because I didn't understand what you were saying, so you're looking for ways to rephrase it and make it more understandable?
Nice trick. Now I'm even less inclined to hear out what you're having to say, because I'm losing trust in your motivations being objective. The more I read your stuff, the more I see that you're 'always trying to be nice'. I can see pretty clearly that it bothers you that I wasn't nice to Ted, an you're trying to couch your feelings in a quasi intellectual discussion about how what I'm doing is, in your opinion not the right thing.
I've been wondering why you can't seem to let it go on agreeing to disagree. I'm thinking, it bothers you emotionally, but you probably don't want to appear 'not nice' by saying you don't like something I'm doing. So instead saying I don't like how you're treating Ted, it bothers me, I wish you wouldn't do it, you go into a drawn on intellectualizing about it, and keep kvetching in hopes to change my mind. It probably bothers you to a point that you hope, If I can just convince to see it my way, maybe she'll stop. If you just say you don't like it, I can always say, you're not Ted, it really doesn't count, and no, you're not so brilliant to be able to get me to do what you want me to do, if you can just get me to see it your way.
You're not here to protect Ted, and you're not here to be my teacher. Way back when we had some rapport, but being that we don't talk in here all that often, especially not socially, and you don't seem to care 1/10th about my feelings being hurt about something as you do about people that you like, I'm not very inclined to listen to you as I don't believe it's in my best interest, but rather serving of your interests.
I'm seeing you more and more as one of those people whom are always nice, whom you really can't trust very much, because if you do, you'll only end up feeling manipulated in an unobtrusive way. I hate fake niceness, because I end up believing it's real or heartfelt, then I feel like an idiot for opening up when I realize it was fake. I've felt like that while interacting with you more then once.
shinypenny - 28 May 2006 14:44 GMT > I'm really not interested in your trying to change my mind on the Ted > approach. If anything, I'm starting to get mildly irritated by your [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > feel like an idiot for opening up when I realize it was fake. I've > felt like that while interacting with you more then once. Well this was quite a harangue!
I thought it was ironic of you to post that article, but then who knows, maybe you had an epiphany. That's why I asked. When you responded and it was clear you hadn't read what you posted all that carefully, and didn't see your own irony in posting it, well, yeah, sue me .... I couldn't let the opportunity pass to point it out to you.
May I ask why you seem to feel I must be 100% genuinely nice, 100% of the time? And anything less than saintly goodness awards me such terms as "manipulative" and "fake"?
I think you're just pissed at yourself for posting something that made my point better than your own... brilliantly, in fact!
jen
Bill in Co. - 28 May 2006 21:07 GMT >> who knows, maybe you had an epiphany. Where do you find these?
Kitty - 29 May 2006 03:31 GMT >>> who knows, maybe you had an epiphany. > >Where do you find these? She can clue you in after she has the epiphany that I have zero interest in the point she's been trying to make.
Seeker - 30 May 2006 16:09 GMT > >> who knows, maybe you had an epiphany. > > Where do you find these? At an epiphany store, Bill. They set them up at the malls on a seasonal basis, you know, like San Francisco Music Boxes.
-- Ted
Kitty - 29 May 2006 04:06 GMT >> I'm really not interested in your trying to change my mind on the Ted >> approach. If anything, I'm starting to get mildly irritated by your [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >Well this was quite a harangue! What a shallow and dismissive response.
>I thought it was ironic of you to post that article, but then who >knows, maybe you had an epiphany. That's why I asked. When you >responded and it was clear you hadn't read what you posted all that >carefully, and didn't see your own irony in posting it, well, yeah, sue >me .... I couldn't let the opportunity pass to point it out to you. I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
>May I ask why you seem to feel I must be 100% genuinely nice, 100% of >the time? >And anything less than saintly goodness awards me such terms >as "manipulative" and "fake"? It's all explained in the "harangue" you dismissed. I'm not going to repeat myself.
I suppose I should add you're the one that comes across as liking to boast yourself about being nice and authentic. I don't find you as such.
>I think you're just pissed at yourself for posting something that made >my point better than your own... Not only putting words in my mouth, but speculating about my feelings and motivations. My, aren't you a presumptuous one.
>brilliantly, in fact! I'm still not quite sure what exactly your point was? I'm not sure what it is you want from me after you make your point? You have a point, you don't have point, who cares. If you have a point, it doesn't require my approval or agreement, does it? Or do you think you're so brilliant no one could possibly not agree with you or not care about what you have to say?
shinypenny - 29 May 2006 13:44 GMT > >Well this was quite a harangue! > > What a shallow and dismissive response. What, exactly, did you want from me? You went for the jugular. Did you expect me to respond back at your same level and attack you too?
> >I thought it was ironic of you to post that article, but then who > >knows, maybe you had an epiphany. That's why I asked. When you [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > boast yourself about being nice and authentic. I don't find you as > such. I am well aware of my faults, Kitty. And had you wanted to point them out to me, if you had used a different, gentler approach, I would discuss them with you as honestly as I could. Others have pointed out my faults before (Tai, Sheila, Lauri... to name a few that come to mind), and I listen and learn from their observations, even if it's a little painful to hear. The difference is they didn't do so in one long attacking go-for-the-jugular harangue. So I am concluding here that there's nothing to learn except that you don't like me and you think I'm a terrible person. That's your perogative, but it's also mine not to have to bother defending myself to someone who may be hell-bent on disliking me no matter what I say!
> >I think you're just pissed at yourself for posting something that made > >my point better than your own... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > it? Or do you think you're so brilliant no one could possibly not > agree with you or not care about what you have to say? And I'm not sure what your point is either.
I would actually like to ask if everything is okay with you (cuz it didn't escape me that you're not just cranky with me), but I'm afraid now you'll take that as "disingenuine."
At any rate... my olive branch is extended if you want to just put this behind us. Maybe I am just rubbing you the wrong way this week? That's fine and I would understand that, because oddly enough, I'm rubbing my own self the wrong way this week too... hee hee...
Did you ever get tired of your own self? Everything you said about me has some truth in it and doesn't go past my head, and yeah, I can get tired of myself, tap-dancing to be always good and kind and whatever.... part of my doldroms is being housebound too much this weekend, despite the weather being glorious, due to the kids' playdate commitments...it's been all the kids' agenda and I've been pretty bored and restless kicking around the house... today thank goodness we've got a family day planned so that should shake things up!
jen
Kitty - 29 May 2006 20:36 GMT >> >Well this was quite a harangue! >> >> What a shallow and dismissive response. > >What, exactly, did you want from me? Me expect from you? Nothing.
I was minding my own business trying to do something constructive by posting what I thought was an interesting text about process of change I just found. Nothing to do with Ted specifically.
You jumped in trying to turn it into another Ted Thread to prove a point from few days ago that apparently still bugged you, because I didn't agree with you, or because I didn't tell you 'll change what I'm doing because you said something. I'm still not really sure what your beef was to set it up to turn into another Ted thread. But I really didn't appreciate what you did.
What pissed me off is that I already explained what I was doing and why. Right wrong or indifferent, I gave you enough info to understand what I was thinking. I didn't ask for approval. You weren't satisfied with disagreeing and leaving it at that, but after several exchanges there, jumped threads and continued to nag me to agree with you, focusing on only *one* out of several things I talked about in the other thread.
I was very civil to you in the other thread, even though I found your pushing to agree with you already somewhat annoying. I gave you several more subtle hints in the other thread to leave it at a disagreement, but you either didn't get them, or chose to ignore them.
When you cross the boundary I set, and don't pick up on several hints, I do go for the jugular. Seems like if I don't, people don't let up and back off. And I especially detest the type of the setup you did, after I thought we were done with the other discussion and agreed to disagree. I thought that particularly nasty on your part.
Kitty - 29 May 2006 20:56 GMT >> >Well this was quite a harangue! >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >to have to bother defending myself to someone who may be hell-bent on >disliking me no matter what I say! Here's a big fat clue Jen: You were sufficiently annoying with what you did, that I really had ZERO interest in discussing your faults in a logical constructive manner.
Since you didn't pick up on more subtle hints about where the boundary was (you know, saying we disagree on some points and not continuing to elaborate etc...) and after you jumped threads with trying to prove whatever point you thought you had in the previous thread. It's so irrelevant that I don't even remember the bulk of the conversation.
Since you apparently didn't pick up on my backing out of that thread and moving on, I figured maybe you'll actually *get* the message to back off if I make it unpleasant for you to continue to interact when you cross my boundary.
I don't care if you defend yourself or not or what, you know who you are, I know who I am. Bottom line is, I'm sufficiently annoyed with you right now to care less about what you have to say for yourself. Or as Ted would say, buzz off.
Bill in Co. - 27 May 2006 02:34 GMT >> CONTEMPLATIVE STAGE >> Miller and Rollnick (1991) state that what frequently jars people into [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > jen "The Neverending Story" stage?
shinypenny - 27 May 2006 14:26 GMT > >> CONTEMPLATIVE STAGE > >> Miller and Rollnick (1991) state that what frequently jars people into [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > "The Neverending Story" stage?
:-) I agree with Kitty that change is a process. The thing is, when people hit the determination/action stage, change happens incredibly fast. It's the earlier stages that can go on endlessly.
We get impatient with Ted (and with you), but the reality is that someday either of you may surprise us with rapid change that makes our head spin!
jen
Seeker - 29 May 2006 06:17 GMT > > CONTEMPLATIVE STAGE > > Miller and Rollnick (1991) state that what frequently jars people into [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So what stage do you think Ted is in? somewhere in the middle. What struck me in your quotation here when I read it the second time was the "convincing, personal, and timely information" -- what gets people working on the steps in a 12 step program is hearing the personal stories of other people who have been where the are and yet now are clearly someplace better -- and how they got there. For instance, I still remember clearly a guy who I heard early in my recovery talk about how he used to be afraid of death -- but was no longer. However he worded it, whatever the emotions that went along with it, that spoke to me more strongly than any of the talk about drinking or not drinking -- I wanted what this guy had and I knew that he'd worked the 12 steps to get it. One of the strong motivators for my asking my wife to join me in counselling was reading Schnarch -- I could identify with being in the position the people he talked about were in and I wanted the results he claimed. Unfortunately, it didn't work out the way he talked about it! The guy who talked about death resonated with me in a way nobody else had -- even though I knew very little about him, that was enough. Whatever the reason, I have yet to hear anyone here say *something* that resonates with me in the same way, although Doug, and maybe even Tracey, has come close. I probably could not have predicted then that that is what would have grabbed me, so I can't predict here what is going to do the trick. Our therapist has said essentially the same thing -- he's talked about other couples he's worked with whose situation seemed impossible, only to find, almost by accident, just the right words or action that turned things around. So we're all being patient.
Ted
Seeker - 29 May 2006 05:58 GMT > Text on a process of change that I want to share with the group. It's > very much like the process of changing things about myself that I go > through relatively often. > > You can find a the full text at the link below. It has a lot more then > I copied and pasted below, including a few specific technique is is okay, it's customary.
<snip>
> RELAPSE > > One of the most significant problems with the 12-step treatment model > is the all-or-none manner in which relapses are construed. Regardless > of the intensity, slips and relapses have always been viewed as > failure, falling off the wagon, time to "start over." I snipped to the end only to point out that while superficially the process described here relates to a 12-step program, it misses two important things. The first is that the "change" that is being made in a 12-step program is *not* to stop the addictive behavior permanently. A direct attack on the problem is almost guaranteed to fail. If you read the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous carefully, you'll notice that alcohol is only mentiioned in the 1st and 12th steps, and in that last only to suggest you shouldn't try to reform the world. (...tried to carry this message to other alcoholics ..") The second is the admission that *you* -- the person with the problem -- cannot make the change him or herself -- that God must make the changes ("remove our shortcomings.") And if you've ever been in an AA meeting where someone who has relapsed has come back you definitely do not get the impression they have to start over. While over the years what works and how it works has been broadened considerably (there are even AA groups for atheists) the original message was very simple. The purpose of the 12 steps is to facilitate a spritual awakening ("...having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps.."), where a spiritual awakening is defined as "a personality change sufficient to bring about recovery" It is the personality change the program seeks to bring about, not stopping the addictive habit. That's "only" a side-effect.
Ted
Kitty - 29 May 2006 20:51 GMT >> Text on a process of change that I want to share with the group. It's >> very much like the process of changing things about myself that I go [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >recovery" It is the personality change the program seeks to bring >about, not stopping the addictive habit. That's "only" a side-effect. Thanks for explaining that. It's interesting to know, since I'm unfamiliar with the 12 step programs.
I'm gad to know they're trying to bring about a spiritual change rather then just teach people new habits, as some people tend to describe it.
Doug Laidlaw - 31 May 2006 09:34 GMT >>> Text on a process of change that I want to share with the group. It's >>> very much like the process of changing things about myself that I go [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > rather then just teach people new habits, as some people tend to > describe it. Whose 12-step program is that? I belonged for a while to GROW, a recovery group for people with mental illnesses. I don't think that it regarded itself as a treatment group, more as a structured support group, although it did have a program. It was started by a Catholic priest, so it had human values built in from the beginning. Naturally it brought God in, but God was the true (as in true love) strong, loving Higher Power. Another title we had for God was the Supreme Healer. Any other attributes you wanted, God could have. The message, borrowed from AA, was that we can't do it on our own.
I have always regarded the process of change as following the familiar model of the frog trying to climb out of a well. He climbs up 3 feet each day, and slips back 2 feet each night. Each backsliding feels like a disaster, but he has still gained one foot overall, and the next spurt of growth starts from there.
The other important principle of GROW is, that the world is not divided into the "sick" and the "well". "The line between sickness and health passes through the middle of each one of us." Well, perhaps not through the middle. I am not as depressed as some, but that isn't what they mean. My wife has a slight compulsion about washing -clothes and dishes mainly. We had a next-door neighbour who was worse. Both lived productive lives. Neither would be called "sick." I have lived a relatively productive life when my wife lets me. The 100% healthy person doesn't exist. Each one of us has the beginnings of one or more personality problems. Each marriage has some slight imperfections. Each "bad marriage" has some good points. The course I was doing taught that we tend to concentrate on the bad moments. Look in between them. Then things weren't so bad, were they?
My wife doesn't like me quoting the Latin classics, but there were two writers of the same era who had opposite approaches, the satirist Juvenal and the younger Pliny, nephew of the one who died during the eruption that destroyed Pompeii. Reading their works, one asks "Are they describing the same city?" Juvenal is so negative; Pliny the opposite. It is simply a question of perspective.
Doug L.
 Signature Imagine all the people living for today. - John Lennon.
shinypenny - 31 May 2006 14:18 GMT > The 100% healthy person doesn't exist. Each one of > us has the beginnings of one or more personality problems. Each marriage > has some slight imperfections. Each "bad marriage" has some good points. > The course I was doing taught that we tend to concentrate on the bad > moments. Look in between them. Then things weren't so bad, were they? I like this very much, Doug. Thanks for sharing! This goes into my "profound thought of the day" bucket.
jen
Kitty - 31 May 2006 17:33 GMT > >>> Text on a process of change that I want to share with the group. It's > >>> very much like the process of changing things about myself that I go [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > same city?" Juvenal is so negative; Pliny the opposite. It is simply a > question of perspective. That sounds more along the lines the way I see things. :) Very good post!
|
|
|